Photo by Dan Dan The Binary Man.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation announced today that next year’s 3-Day Walk in D.C.has been canceled.

In a note posted on Facebook, the breast cancer organization said “participation levels over the last four years have made it difficult to sustain an event of this magnitude in 14 cities.”

“The difficult decision to exit these markets was not made lightly, as we know this bold and empowering event has touched the lives of thousands of participants like you,” the message reads. This year’s event, scheduled for Oct. 11-13, will go on as planned.

Events scheduled for next year in Arizona, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Tampa, Fla., and San Francisco were also canceled.

Komen has come under fire in recent years for a number of reasons, including a top official’s attempt to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood in early 2012. Registration for Komen’s 2012 Global Race for the Cure, held just three months later, was down nearly 40 percent from the previous year, the Post reported.

The foundation has also been criticized for its commodification of breast cancer, which was explored in the documentary “Pink Ribbons, Inc,” as well as the amount of money it devotes to research. A New York Times Magazine story from April explored the organization’s funding of screenings and education over research:

More than anything else, though, the ribbon reminds women that every single one of us is vulnerable to breast cancer, and our best protection is annual screening. Despite the fact that Komen trademarked the phrase “for the cure,” only 16 percent of the $472 million raised in 2011, the most recent year for which financial reports are available, went toward research. At $75 million, that’s still enough to give credence to the claim that Komen has been involved in every major breast-cancer breakthrough for the past 29 years. Still, the sum is dwarfed by the $231 million the foundation spent on education and screening.

Though Komen now acknowledges the debate over screening on its Web site, the foundation has been repeatedly accused of overstating mammography’s benefits while dismissing its risks.